United States of America v. Real Property Located On Deer Valley Road

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,PLAINTIFF,v.REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON DEER VALLEY ROAD, BANGOR CALIFORNIA, BUTTE COUNTY, APN: 028-450-017, INCLUDING ALL APPURTENANCES AND IMPROVEMENTS THERETO, DEFENDANT.

UNITED STATES' REQUEST TO
CONTINUE THE MARCH 19, 2012
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE;
PROPOSED ORDER

The United States submits the following Request to Continue the March 19, 2012 Scheduling Conference. For the reasons set forth below, there is good cause to continue the currently set March 19, 2012 scheduling conference to May 29, 2012.

Introduction

On November 10, 2011, the United States filed a civil forfeiture complaint against Real Property located on Deer Valley Road, Bangor, California, Butte County, APN: 028-450-017 based on its involvement in federal drug law violations, and because it was purchased with illegally structured funds. All known potential claimants to the defendant property were served in a manner consistent with Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 168 (2002) and the applicable statutory authority. Additionally, public notice on the official internet government forfeiture site, www.forfeiture.gov, began on December 15, 2011 and ran for thirty consecutive days, as required by Rule G(4)(a)(iv)(C) of Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.

Good Cause

There is good cause to continue the scheduling conference currently set for March 19, 2012. The United States provided notice to potential claimants pursuant to law and, no party having appeared in the case, requested a clerk's default on November 13, 2012. After a Rule 55(a) default was entered on February 14, 2012, the United States moved for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture.*fn1

The United States has diligently pursued its forfeiture case against the defendant property, noticing all potential claimants, requesting certificates of default after no party filed a claim and, thereafter, moving for default judgment. The latter motion sets forth the forfeiture basis and the notice facts, which included notice by publication, posting the defendant property, and direct notice.

Whereas the United States provided notice of the forfeiture complaint and no party has filed a claim, nor sought an extension of time to comply with the statutory deadlines, or otherwise asserted an interest in this litigation. And whereas the United States has moved for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture, the United States requests that this Court continue the scheduling conference currently calendared for March 19, 2012 in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable William B. Shubb, pending the resolution of the United States' motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture. For these reasons, the United States seeks to continue the currently set March 19, 2012 scheduling conference to May 29, 2012, or continue the scheduling conference to a date the Court deems acceptable.

ORDER Pursuant to Plaintiffs' request and good cause appearing, the Court makes the following order:

The scheduling conference currently set for March 19, 2012 is continued to May 29, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5 before the Honorable William B. Shubb, pending the resolution of the United States' motion for default judgment and final judgment of forfeiture.

IT IS SO ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.